What is needed to cross 2000 elo ?

What is needed to cross 2000 elo ?

At a recent tournament, an IM adviced me that you can beat 2200 elo players bybeing the better tactician. Grab a tactic workbook and work until tactics become your second nature.

People who crossed 2000, or people working to cross 2000, what are your secrets for crossing that mark ?

I'm not kidding when I say I heard a 2100 player recently remark that to get to 1800 all you need is to not blunder material.

Also Carlsen said of Wesely So a year or two ago that all he really knew were tactics and opening theory.

---

In other words, it's all relative. So you have to take what the IM said in context. First, what you actually need is to know is a little bit of everything. After that, sure, you can work a lot on tactics. There should be many ways to get to 2000. Maybe the easiest (after learning a little bit of everything) is tactics.

I totally disagree with both above statements. 

I used to believe that sort of stuff, a la "Michael de la Maza" but it's completely,utterly false. 

These kind of statement likely come from players with strong strategy and openings, and thus focus on the tactics that ultimately decide their game. 

 

But for sure, without that strategic and opening understanding, the winning (or losing) tactics will never occur. 

 

I've found that having strategic and opening understanding in your positions is pretty critical even at a low 1200 level, and explains why a lot of players here get stuck at the 1200 level in 5-min blitz - they study tactics, tactics, tactics, because of statements like the above, but their REAL limiter are the simpler strategic errors that they repeatedly make, which give the opponent all the winning tactics.

 

You can plug your games into an engine and see this for yourself. If the graph of the game goes winning all the way and then you start losing from a sudden tactic, then ok, tactics are the reason you lost. But if the graph inches downwards slowly and gradually, you're not losing because of missing tactics - you're losing because you're making smaller (but important) strategic errors that accumulate into a lost position.

Go online to OTB tournament. Download pgn files of 2000-2200 rated. You will see how terrible sometimes they play like completely amateur, blundering, making unsound sacs, not knowing endgame theory.. Time trouble.. But games are interesting, more like ours, and sometimes they crush titled players like NM's

Don't know if you included one of my statements in that disagreement hhnngg, but that's what I mean. IMO you need all your basics first. Then if you want to focus like crazy on something it might work.

And I don't mean basics like "put a pawn in the center, rooks on open files, and push your passed pawns, now you know opening, middlegame, and endgame." I mean basics like it should take a few years of study at the minimum 

<hhnngg1>

+1. Great post!! I like your thinking. 

From the "position of authority" (heh) of flirting with 2000 for the last couple of years (FIDE rating fluctuating between 1930 and 2015 - currently at 1982) I will say the following:

If you eliminate (or close to it) hanging pieces and take your opponent's hanging pieces when he leaves them over 95% of the time - you should be 1200. I'm talking about losing a piece in ONE MOVE. 

If you stop (or almost) losing pieces to TWO-MOVE tactics (a simple fork, a simple skewer, a trapped piece in one move), you should be 1500 FIDE. 

Why?

Because people below these ratings make these mistakes simply ALL THE TIME. 

At those levels (and also at my level) your playing strength isn't decided by your best moves and ideas. It's decided by your WORST BLUNDERS ONLY. 

If I'm around 2000, it's because my errors are slighter than those of the 1400 player - who may be in principle the more brilliant strategist. It matters none so long as he's weaker in those TACTICS. 

I actually know one such player - his ideas always impress me - but he always loses to me badly, even in blitz games of seven minutes against one - as his mental discipline isn't fully there yet - which is why he's 1300ish. 

After 1500 we can talk about more advanced concepts - strategy, opening knowledge (which should still be pretty elementary as regards concrete variations, until you're about 1800, in my humble opinion), planning, more advanced tactics, endgame knowledge and strategy. 

Realize that up to that level (1500) you just drop pieces ALL THE TIME. 

Show me that hypothetical engine graph, where your eval goes down all the time because of bad strategy - and I'll show you that after your graph was down, you could have won a piece or a couple of pawns and turned the game around - every single time. I won't need a computer to do that either...

With players under 1500 the eval never goes down gradually as the game progresses. This could happen (although very, very rarely, and basically for the same reason only in a more advanced way...) to 2000 players. 

Players under 1500 see their eval graph fluctuate MADLY, with a game going typically from won to lost many times in a game. They just blunder these tactics all the time - or close to it. 

It is true, though, that many players in the range 1300 to about 1750 adopt a "closed-game" strategy, that aims to avoid any and all tactics - and when two such players play with each other you see long drawn out games, with typically no pawn breaks, both players being scared of eventual tactical possibilities... 

But this is no strategy. It is just plain cowardice... 

Sound strategy is always based on sharp tactical vision. This is always a defining characteristic at any level that I'm aware of. 

That intermediate-level "closed game 'strategist' " typically becomes very embarrassed, even angry, when a stronger player gets decisive advantages against them time and again, by blasting their games open before move 16...

These are my two Mexican pesos. 

I don't think it's true at all as well that '1500 players drop pieces ALL THE TIME.'

 

Against weak opposition (<1200 for example), 1500s might NEVER drop pieces. 1200s (at least in 5-min blitz here, which is higher than the UCSF 1200) don't put up enough positional pressure to lead 1500s to commonly blunder.

Against a 2000+ player though, 1500s look like blundering patzers, but it's not because the 1500 misses such obvious stuff all the time - it's because the position the 2000 player gets puts so much positional pressure on that it's quite easy to make a blunder while worrying about all the other strategic threats that are threatening to suffocate the position.

 

When I was a lowly 1100 rated blitz player here, I'd say a majority of my games against 1250-rated players had ZERO tactical errors on their part when plugged into an engine. They didn't miss a single kill or blunder a piece. Ever.

 

Now that I'm 1400-1500, and playing much better openings and have better strategic knowledge, it seems that it's a total blunderfest with 1200s-1300s! But I know for a fact - it's not because they're just blundering beacuse they're blundering - it's just much, much easier to blunder when dealing with so many threats from a capable opponent who gets themselves into a much better positiont to make those threats.

 

And no, studying more tactics does NOT solve the problem of those 1200s blundernig against 1500s. Studying the positions and setups to AVOID those situations is the way to stop those blunders. 

 

I actually am sure I blunder MORE now at 1500 than I did at 1200, as I calculated much, much mroe at 1200! But I'm more often in not in very comfortable and familiar positions at 1500, where it's much harder for me to blunder until at least the late middlegame or endgame.

A good work ethic.

Blitz is a little different, but I think you make some good points hhnngg. I never thought about 1500 vs 1200 where the 1500 probably makes no tactical mistakes, hmm.

It reminds me when I disagree with Reb when he says players under a certain rating NEVER get a relevant endgame... which is not true. 1200 vs 1200 they will miss the same things, so it's very possible for them to get to an endgame with equal material and it can be theoretically relevant.

---

That said, I don't disagree with solskytz. I think there are certain habits all players under a certain rating don't have, and I relate them to tactics.

For example I might get a few pieces near my opponent's king, and my low rated opponent becomes so agitated by this pressure that they decide to e.g. move a pawn to kick one of the pieces away without bothering to calculate the consequences clearly. Their strategic knowledge IS enough to deal with the position, but they don't have the habit to calculate forcing moves clearly on every move to see if their move is safe.

They may even know intuitively that their move is dangerous, but they play it anyway because (for example) the knight on  f5 was very menacing even though there were no immediate threats.

People often overestimate their ability at things they're no good at, and their ability to improve, but a lot also often underestimate how hard what they find easy to do can be for someone else. 

What are you really good at? Do you have a knack for math perhaps? For drawing? For a science subject? For a sport? Videogames?

People who are really good at something aren't always good at explaining how they're good at it or how to improve. A lot of their intricacies they've internalized so much it feels really easy to them, like walking. It's just natural to them, they can't imagine doing things any other way. Think about the graceful movements of a top sports player. 

Being good at something doesn't automatically put you in a position to teach others as is often assumed. Clearly it's helpful to know what you're doing so it's not the blind leading the blind, but to be an effective trainer you also have to know and understand something about how people learn and the mind/processes of the unskilled player.  

<hhnngg> show me any of your games and I'll show you the two move tactics you missed (either dropping your pieces or failing to take your opponents') - this is, of course, unless you're over 1500 actually. 

The 1400 player would also drop pieces to the 1200 player - who often wouldn't notice that either, and the game would go on most peacefully, both parties certain that "they've fought a great strategic battle"...

I understand what you write, that 1500s look like patzers to the 2000s because of positional factors. That may very well be the case - but believe me, I can check any of your games against players of any strength, and find these missed TWO MOVE tactics if you're under 1500. Players of these levels miss them very very frequently. 

You are making some very good points, and the logic in your argument is very convincingly put. I must agree (and this is a principle that applies not only to chess) that when you generally understand more about a subject, you also tend to make far fewer ridiculous errors...

I would also agree that "make fewer blunders!" doesn't handle the basic, underlying CAUSE of these blunders, which may well be, in the final analysis, deficient understanding - 

But be that as it may, those blunders are there all the time for <1500s - even when they play much weaker opposition. And tactical work will help to some extent to eliminate them - and also application of the "Blumenfeld rule"... 

There are some great points in #11 and #12 above. I enjoyed reading. 

I agree.

I also think people who are very skilled often underestimate the work they put in when talking to others. Usually if you're very skilled, to a certain extent the work was enjoyable.

So they look back and recall "I never bothered to annotate any master games myself"

But what they don't say is that every day for 12 years, just for fun and to relax, they would get out a board and analyze games from recent tournaments for hours at a time. It's true they never wrote down any annotations in a file or notebook. But they did a lot of work, and gained many insights.

But they say

"Just play over some games in your spare time, that should be enough to get the main ideas"

Of course the student doesn't realize this means many thousands of games over the course of many years.

all posts have a point. After 20 years of not playing (2100+) I recently started again . I was amazed by the blunders people make (not blitz, 1 move in 24 hours).
Losing peaces in one move, playing without a plan (so mostly just react) and no idea what the general plan is behind an opening.

I have the feeling that people just look at statistics of an opening, play a line which wins 70% but one move not mentioned and they make fatal mistakes.

Becoming 2000+ means balance. You don't need to be a master of openings, a master in tactics.
A good general understanding of the strong and weak points of an opening, capable of looking ahead 3 moves, patience (don't attack when your not ready).

I play Blackmar a lot, bad opening? Perhaps. Refuted? Perhaps.
Until now (just like 20 years ago) a very, very good score.

I know my tactics, I know the opportunities in the BDG , I know the attacking patterns.
So avoid the big mistakes, think 3 moves ahead and you win.

So the plan is very simple. I you can follow the plan is a matter of devotion, time, study and a bit of chess feeling.

But I dare to say that anyone with a bit of beta study background, a normal intelligence can reach 2100 with devotion.
Above 2100 talent, feeling becomes more and more important .

You see, <SmyslovFan>? 

This is the point I didn't answer you on yesterday. 

So what if a line has a 30% success rate (let's say) for Black?

It has that success rate (maybe) because most of the time those playing black chose move X, Y or Z

But suddenly you see that move B gives a 46% success rate and a nice position. 

Thanks, <Kareldevries> :-)

With devotion, this is the point. And even then, it isn't easy. 

Where are these missing 100 points? :-) I want 2100 too!!!

Huh?

As has been said in different ways a few different times in this topic already.

Maybe the biggest "secret" is enjoying the work. So you work every day. Then after a few years, without really noticing, you wake up one day and you're a very good player.

<SmyslovFan> 

looks familiar? 

:-)

You claimed that position is drawish. I pointed out that White has a small edge and has a plus score. I pointed out it wasn't drawish at all, especially below 2500 level.

 

Does that look familiar?